|
On June 23 2011 09:22 jinixxx123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:18 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 09:18 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:12 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:10 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:06 Vandal_heart wrote:
Citation very much needed...
Really tired of some of the stuff thats done to screw over gamers in the fight against piracy. DRM that slows down pirated releases for a whole evening of some script kiddies time, and is removed for the non paying customer. One time use codes so you have to keep track of account details if you think youll want to replay a game at some point. And no lan, so you can watch MLG and see Incontrol's face get increasingly more FFFFFUUUUU as the connection to bnet lags. Again, I WANT LAN. I know it sucks we have to deal with it, but again, it makes sense they would do it. I'm getting tired of being screwed over to deal with pirates too, but until there aren't any(LOL) we have to deal with it. Again, "This is why we can't have nice things". It was citation needed for the "LAN would make the game be pirated a ton" section. ICCup, for one. Or the fact that 3.2 million were pirated already, and that's only for single player? Offering Free mutiplayer to pirates too? Starcraft 1 was pirated Millions of times, what makes you think Starcraft 2 wont in a time where pirating is much more common? ICCup wasn't LAN. iccup was possible BECAUSE OF LAN MODE.
nope iccup was a emulated battle.net server, they ran mods such as LatencyChanger mod developed by MasterofChaos was in default on their server but it still required an external program for that plug-in. which allowed you to lower then b.net latency from the lowest of 250ms down to lan delay of 126ms-ish.
Blizzard turned a blind eye to those servers although they could take it down if they wanted, brainclan etc. Just like they taken down WoW servers and SC2 servers. iccup had nothing to do with lan mode in sc1. Yes you can play pirated copies of SC1 on iccup but blizz figures when the game is 10 years old who cares.
|
On June 23 2011 09:39 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:22 jinixxx123 wrote:On June 23 2011 09:18 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 09:18 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:12 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:10 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:06 Vandal_heart wrote:
Citation very much needed...
Really tired of some of the stuff thats done to screw over gamers in the fight against piracy. DRM that slows down pirated releases for a whole evening of some script kiddies time, and is removed for the non paying customer. One time use codes so you have to keep track of account details if you think youll want to replay a game at some point. And no lan, so you can watch MLG and see Incontrol's face get increasingly more FFFFFUUUUU as the connection to bnet lags. Again, I WANT LAN. I know it sucks we have to deal with it, but again, it makes sense they would do it. I'm getting tired of being screwed over to deal with pirates too, but until there aren't any(LOL) we have to deal with it. Again, "This is why we can't have nice things". It was citation needed for the "LAN would make the game be pirated a ton" section. ICCup, for one. Or the fact that 3.2 million were pirated already, and that's only for single player? Offering Free mutiplayer to pirates too? Starcraft 1 was pirated Millions of times, what makes you think Starcraft 2 wont in a time where pirating is much more common? ICCup wasn't LAN. iccup was possible BECAUSE OF LAN MODE. nope iccup was a emulated battle.net server, they ran mods such as LatencyChanger mod developed by MasterofChaos was in default on their server but it still required an external program for that plug-in. which allowed you to lower then b.net latency from the lowest of 250ms down to lan delay of 126ms-ish. Blizzard turned a blind eye to those servers although they could take it down if they wanted, brainclan etc. Just like they taken down WoW servers and SC2 servers. iccup had nothing to do with lan mode in sc1. Yes you can play pirated copies of SC1 on iccup but blizz figures when the game is 10 years old who cares.
I believe he's equating lan mode to peer to peer game play. Which in essence is correct. There was a direct interaction between clients while there is none in SC2. At least I believe this is correct.
|
On June 23 2011 07:18 darkscream wrote:
Bad argument made by propagandist.
Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and including LAN would let your game get exposed to new people for free. This is like saying "terrorists ruined travel", even though it's the government ruining travelling.
Not to mention that most of these games have online ladder systems and that's what people buy the game for - The competitive ladder.
What can you really say. As a game developer he has to talk like that because its his bread and butter. But, because of this I feel like his opinion is pretty much not relevant because it's strongly biased without any actual proof/evidence to his claims. Just saber rattling towards pirates.
This.
Blizzard are control freaks, imho. They just want an excuse for getting away stuff like this. If this contiues we'll end up loaning the products that we buy more than actually owning them. Blizzard's not the only company wanting this.
|
I totally agree with this.
If LAN directly correlates to a vastly increased level of piracy, why put it in?
It may be nice to have, but its not essential.
And don't come arguing with me that it is essential, I get that you'd like it but that doesn't define essential. I think the growth of SC2 e-sports scene pretty much shows that a game can easily thrive competitively without LAN functionality.
|
On June 23 2011 09:31 Stiluz wrote:
I find it funny that people make the argument that everyone who pirates Starcraft 2 wouldn't have bought it anyway. This is completely true. But on the flip side, of everyone who has bought Starcraft 2, who would've pirated instead if you could play the multiplayer on the pirated version? Maybe a small part would've bought the game of all those who pirated it, and maybe a small part would've pirated the multiplayer if possible. But that's still a lot of lost money for Blizzard. Not to mention controlling tournaments and such to avoid the Kespa thing.
how many people is that though? this isn't the 90s. my gamer friends aren't my next door neighbors and roommates anymore. i rely on bnet to play SC2 because almost all of my friend's list is out of state and when they aren't available for a custom 1v1 I can instantly find a random ladder match.
LAN would let me play with 3 or 4 of my local friends, only 1 of which is a big SC2 fan and the other 2 have since uninstalled the game.
hell, a LAN mode would probably keep those 2 other friends playing the game, and more likely to watch MLG and buy the expansion. even if they had pirated the game at first just to LAN with friends, when we want to play stupid customs like Nexus Word Wars or StarJeweled they would have to buy the actual game. or more realistically, when we want to play a quick game together without having to pack up our computers, we'd just play the game on bnet.
it happens all the time with my steam friends. a few of us buy the game on steam sale, the ones that miss the sale pirate the game to see what its like, then end up paying full price later to play with us on steam.
|
On June 23 2011 09:33 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:28 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:24 flowSthead wrote:On June 23 2011 09:22 theOnslaught wrote:On June 23 2011 09:21 masterbreti wrote:
Just for reference. Right now over 5k people are downloading sc2 and pirating it. at 50 a peice. There is something like 300,000 in lost sales just for today. assuming on average sc2 get pirated the same amount for the last 6 months and for the entire 2011.
That means in 2011 alone. sc2 was pirated and lost blizz more than 3.6 million. Thats a huge amount fo money.
I think in 2010 the most pirated gameswas sc2 with like 1.2 million pirated it. Thats hundreds of millions of dollars lost. You're a fool, not everyone that pirated the game was going to buy it in the first place. People keep up bringing this up, but I do not see how it makes it better. It is the equivalent argument to saying that not everyone that drinks and drives will murder someone. It happens often enough. Excuse me sir, which arguing college did you go to? Because they have done some sterling work... How is the analogy poor? Illegally downloading a game and drunk driving are both illegal, and both of them have the possibility to cause harm. One by potential lost sales, and the other by injury or death. People not against piracy are saying that not all pirates would have purchased anyway, and I make the analogy that not all drunk driving results in death. This doesn't change that more drunk driving usually leads to more death, and more pirating will mean a greater number of people that might have bought it. Also, both are illegal. Explain to me where the analogy fails.
Because the person you were quoting was talking about the "I think in 2010 the most pirated gameswas sc2 with like 1.2 million pirated it. Thats hundreds of millions of dollars lost" line, specifically.
Nobody said it made it better, just that it made the conclusion obviously wrong. Also equating people getting killed in car accidents to blizzard not getting money, thats not really the best of analogies.
|
On June 23 2011 07:10 mdma-_- wrote:
that still doesnt explain why they cant allow people to play each other in lan with the necessecity of being logged into bnet/whatever online client.
cheap excuse just to blame it on pirates tbh
User was warned for this post
|
On June 23 2011 09:42 Subversion wrote:
I totally agree with this.
If LAN directly correlates to a vastly increased level of piracy, why put it in?
It may be nice to have, but its not essential.
And don't come arguing with me that it is essential, I get that you'd like it but that doesn't define essential. I think the growth of SC2 e-sports scene pretty much shows that a game can easily thrive competitively without LAN functionality.
[citation needed]
Although I guess that's been done before in this thread >.<
|
On June 23 2011 09:41 Spacedude wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 07:18 darkscream wrote:
Bad argument made by propagandist.
Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, and including LAN would let your game get exposed to new people for free. This is like saying "terrorists ruined travel", even though it's the government ruining travelling.
Not to mention that most of these games have online ladder systems and that's what people buy the game for - The competitive ladder.
What can you really say. As a game developer he has to talk like that because its his bread and butter. But, because of this I feel like his opinion is pretty much not relevant because it's strongly biased without any actual proof/evidence to his claims. Just saber rattling towards pirates. This. Blizzard are control freaks, imo. They just want an excuse for getting away stuff like this.
No. I know a lot of people who bought it that would've much rather just downloaded it. You're talking about people who would download but not buy it. There are a lot of people that would download it and buy it. I have some friends who have somehow downloaded fake versions and don't play online (just single player). No LAN prevents them from playing online, but it doesn't affect Blizzard's sales. But I have some friends who bought the game, but would never buy it if they could play against others for free. That's the problem.
|
On June 23 2011 09:26 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:18 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:12 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:10 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:06 Vandal_heart wrote:
Citation very much needed...
Really tired of some of the stuff thats done to screw over gamers in the fight against piracy. DRM that slows down pirated releases for a whole evening of some script kiddies time, and is removed for the non paying customer. One time use codes so you have to keep track of account details if you think youll want to replay a game at some point. And no lan, so you can watch MLG and see Incontrol's face get increasingly more FFFFFUUUUU as the connection to bnet lags. Again, I WANT LAN. I know it sucks we have to deal with it, but again, it makes sense they would do it. I'm getting tired of being screwed over to deal with pirates too, but until there aren't any(LOL) we have to deal with it. Again, "This is why we can't have nice things". It was citation needed for the "LAN would make the game be pirated a ton" section. ICCup, for one. Or the fact that 3.2 million were pirated already, and that's only for single player? Offering Free mutiplayer to pirates too? Starcraft 1 was pirated Millions of times, what makes you think Starcraft 2 wont in a time where pirating is much more common? if it weren't for SC:BW pirates at Korean PC Bangs, there might not even be an SC2. piracy made the game popular. a pirated game doesn't mean a loss of a sale. it just means that someone who would likely never buy your game got to play your game and is now a fan of your work. SC2:WoL pirates just makes a bigger market for SC2:HotS, and whatever DLC and paid services they wish to introduce until then. LAN has nothing to do with loss of profits.
im sure right now you think you have made a good argument, but you fail to also seee how FLAWED it really is.
the first part of your argument made sense. That yes ICCUP helped make starcraft what it is today. However the part where your argument completely flopped is when you said sc2 sales is reaping the benefits of starcraft 1 because pirates were able to play on it /test it.
you forget to ask yourself this question, How is starcraft 2 reaping the benefits? is it because it excluded lan thus ppl have TO PURCHASE THE GAME to play multiplayer?
if starcraft2 included lan and then ended up being pirated and iCCUPsc2 got made, do you think starcraft 2 would have made "as much profits" , or Lost sales?
your argument is basically terrible, because it presumed that both games had LAN. when in reality sc2 is only benefiting in profits from sc1 BECAUSE IT EXCLUDED LAN.
THATS THE FACTS.
|
On June 23 2011 09:44 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:42 Subversion wrote:
I totally agree with this.
If LAN directly correlates to a vastly increased level of piracy, why put it in?
It may be nice to have, but its not essential.
And don't come arguing with me that it is essential, I get that you'd like it but that doesn't define essential. I think the growth of SC2 e-sports scene pretty much shows that a game can easily thrive competitively without LAN functionality. [citation needed] Although I guess that's been done before in this thread >.<
Simple how many pirated copies are playing on battle.net 2.0 right now? 0 i would think although maybe a guy has his private little thing.
How many pirated copies of other blizz games wc3 garena are being played on garena right now even if you assume 99.9% are payed for copies that still leaves 1 2 which would be more then battle.net 2.0
It's called how easy is it to do something emulating a network over the Internet, not that hard. emulating a compete server to not just list games but semi host them a bit harder.
|
On June 23 2011 09:43 Vandal_heart wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:33 flowSthead wrote:On June 23 2011 09:28 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:24 flowSthead wrote:On June 23 2011 09:22 theOnslaught wrote:On June 23 2011 09:21 masterbreti wrote:
Just for reference. Right now over 5k people are downloading sc2 and pirating it. at 50 a peice. There is something like 300,000 in lost sales just for today. assuming on average sc2 get pirated the same amount for the last 6 months and for the entire 2011.
That means in 2011 alone. sc2 was pirated and lost blizz more than 3.6 million. Thats a huge amount fo money.
I think in 2010 the most pirated gameswas sc2 with like 1.2 million pirated it. Thats hundreds of millions of dollars lost. You're a fool, not everyone that pirated the game was going to buy it in the first place. People keep up bringing this up, but I do not see how it makes it better. It is the equivalent argument to saying that not everyone that drinks and drives will murder someone. It happens often enough. Excuse me sir, which arguing college did you go to? Because they have done some sterling work... How is the analogy poor? Illegally downloading a game and drunk driving are both illegal, and both of them have the possibility to cause harm. One by potential lost sales, and the other by injury or death. People not against piracy are saying that not all pirates would have purchased anyway, and I make the analogy that not all drunk driving results in death. This doesn't change that more drunk driving usually leads to more death, and more pirating will mean a greater number of people that might have bought it. Also, both are illegal. Explain to me where the analogy fails. Because the person you were quoting was talking about the "I think in 2010 the most pirated gameswas sc2 with like 1.2 million pirated it. Thats hundreds of millions of dollars lost" line, specifically. Nobody said it made it better, just that it made the conclusion obviously wrong. Also equating people getting killed in car accidents to blizzard not getting money, thats not really the best of analogies.
I don't care about who Onslaught was quoting, the argument he made is one seen in this entire thread and it is a flawed argument. The conclusion is also not wrong generally, just specifically. If out of 1000 games only 20 are real lost sales, those are still 20 lost sales. The number doesn't change the reality of the crime.
I also don't think you understand what an analogy is. Just because you interpret dieing in a car accident to be worse than Blizzard losing money, does not make it a poor analogy. The analogy serves to clarify. The fact that you see an issue with drunk driving, but not pirating and stealing someone's stuff, just serves to illustrate something about your personal morals, not the analogy as a whole.
I happen to agree that drunk driving is worse, by the way, I just don't then make the conclusion that pirating is suddenly ok because something worse exists. The analogy works because it illustrates that both are wrong due to bad consequences that follow them. The percentage of bad consequences to actions does not change how good or bad those actions are. They are separate issues.
|
On June 23 2011 07:18 Meteora.GB wrote:
Many developers are not implementing LAN simply because of piracy, yeah that's about it really. A lot of them are afraid of their profits dropping simply of how the game is pirated.
I recall MW2 was pirated over 4 million times in a week or so on the PC version, entirely over dwarfing the number of legitimate copies bought. Many gamers insist that piracy is not a concern however. Its a controversial topic that neither side are willing to agree on with each other.
You could pirate MW2, do some coding and you could play online with people that had bought the game, doubt it would be that easy to do though if the game developers actually made an effort to stop stuff like that
|
I don't mind not including LAN as long as BNET performs. Up to this point, it hasn't.
It's really silly that iCCup is able to have nearly 0 latency for ALL players while Blizzard has insane lag sometimes even within the same region. Not to mention, Blizzard further taken advantage by region locking accounts. What's the point of this? Not only do you take out LAN, you make people pay MORE money for cross-region accounts that don't even perform well? Now we have an issue.
|
On June 23 2011 09:47 jinixxx123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:26 eggs wrote:On June 23 2011 09:18 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:12 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:10 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:06 Vandal_heart wrote:
Citation very much needed...
Really tired of some of the stuff thats done to screw over gamers in the fight against piracy. DRM that slows down pirated releases for a whole evening of some script kiddies time, and is removed for the non paying customer. One time use codes so you have to keep track of account details if you think youll want to replay a game at some point. And no lan, so you can watch MLG and see Incontrol's face get increasingly more FFFFFUUUUU as the connection to bnet lags. Again, I WANT LAN. I know it sucks we have to deal with it, but again, it makes sense they would do it. I'm getting tired of being screwed over to deal with pirates too, but until there aren't any(LOL) we have to deal with it. Again, "This is why we can't have nice things". It was citation needed for the "LAN would make the game be pirated a ton" section. ICCup, for one. Or the fact that 3.2 million were pirated already, and that's only for single player? Offering Free mutiplayer to pirates too? Starcraft 1 was pirated Millions of times, what makes you think Starcraft 2 wont in a time where pirating is much more common? if it weren't for SC:BW pirates at Korean PC Bangs, there might not even be an SC2. piracy made the game popular. a pirated game doesn't mean a loss of a sale. it just means that someone who would likely never buy your game got to play your game and is now a fan of your work. SC2:WoL pirates just makes a bigger market for SC2:HotS, and whatever DLC and paid services they wish to introduce until then. LAN has nothing to do with loss of profits. im sure right now you think you have made a good argument, but you fail to also seee how FLAWED it really is. the first part of your argument made sense. That yes ICCUP helped make starcraft what it is today. However the part where your argument completely flopped is when you said sc2 sales is reaping the benefits starcraft 1 because pirates were able to play on it. you forget to ask yourself this question, How is starcraft 2 reaping the benefits? is it because it excluded lan thus ppl have TO PURCHASE THE GAME to play multiplayer? if starcraft2 to included lan and then ended up being pirated and iCCUPsc2 got made, do you think starcraft 2 would have made "as much profits" , or Lost sales. your argument is basically terrible, because it presumed that both games had LAN. when in reality sc2 is only benefiting in profits from sc1 BECAUSE IT EXCLUDED LAN. THATS THE FACTS.
by the time ICCup was popular, BW bnet was awful. it had no matchmaking. there was no reason for any serious player to spend their days on bnet. it was terrible
for as much as people hate on bnet2.0 (mostly because NO LAN), it makes SC2 worth buying to play on bnet.
the question is whether adding LAN would mean a loss of profits. my argument is that even if LAN attracts pirates, it attracts more paying customers than you would have gotten without it. pirates are a scapegoat. if you have a quality game and a quality online service, people will pay to play.
|
This really isn't news. It was always about the money and piracy. As the first guy said, it's a cheap excuse. You find alternative solutions to your woes. Major tournaments deserve the proper product solution in order to run smoothly and professionally.
The best players truly standout above the rest in LAN settings. The game is much and I mean much faster and the sensitivity is nuts. They should have separate products for the DHs/MLGs/GOMs.
It's like asking the top sprinters to race 100m while wearing weights around their ankles.
Retail, fine.
Tournaments? LAN.
|
Games are still released with LAN (Red Orchestra 2), and people still buy them (seriously buy Red Orchestra 2).
Multiplayer games are released without LAN (SC2), and piracy is still on the raise (everything).
|
im confused how putting a lan option for sc2 would lower revenue(in any sense) as i will elaborate below.
okay lets assume with the lan feature you can create any map (and we will assume no one makes recreations of the campaign as maps). So if your by yourself you can only play vs computers, which isn't much training at all seeing playing against something that gets more minerals per trip, map hacks, and can have perfect macro is never going to happen in a normal game. Now yes, you can play with buddies/family/etc, but that means they would have to bring their rig over to your house or you have a spare computer, which, seems highly unlikely as 2 people playing together over and over and over after awhile should get boring. Furthermore, how are you ever going to become better at the game if you only have a limited number of practice partners, the whole point of playing online games is for the ONLINE community. The whole point of laning is to either: have fun with friends or in off-line competitions. And when you're playing with friends, almost everyone wants to "be the best" so they have "bragging rights" so to speak. And if you want to be the best... you would need to play on a regular basis, and in most cases playing on a regular basis won't be achieved purely through playing in lans and therefore, you would need the game to play ladder in order to get better. And if you need the game, you would have to buy it. As for competitive play [i will use MLG in this example], no one is going to play unless they: are "good" such as a pro player or would just like to go to have fun (getting "owned" by a pro), but most likely, a person willing to drop $70 on an mlg ticket is already an avid player, spectator, and community-contributing individual and why would they drop $70 to get owned when they could buy the game for $50?
For example, I know 20~ people IRL that play sc2 from school etc. 15~ aren't even close to active, so I would never be able to lan with them and ontop of that, there are only 2 of us that are actually good. top master (myself) and GM (my buddy). There is only so much you can do on lan because you have to be on the same network and for "logistical reasons" i don't see people using it as the only medium for playing the game. Yes, there will be exceptions but they will be out-liers, so why worry?
Lastly, if your product isn't "pirateable" someone will just pirate something else that is free and play it. They never would pay for it in the beginning, however, with starcraft you can only accomplish so much in a LAN setting, thus if they truly "like the game" after playing with buddies for several weeks or a month they may have the sense to go out and buy it.
I would like to see a counter-argument(s) that would prove me wrong but in essence my logic is: people would have never played the game before because it costs $$ -> [assume lan function here]they like the lan which has only limited features due to the "logistics" of how lans work -> said person decides to buy the game because they want to play it more and not be limited by needing to lan.
The only forseeable problem I could see is college campuses (where a network would be fucking huge).
|
On June 23 2011 09:39 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:22 jinixxx123 wrote:On June 23 2011 09:18 Zeke50100 wrote:On June 23 2011 09:18 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:12 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:10 Seam wrote:On June 23 2011 09:06 Vandal_heart wrote:
Citation very much needed...
Really tired of some of the stuff thats done to screw over gamers in the fight against piracy. DRM that slows down pirated releases for a whole evening of some script kiddies time, and is removed for the non paying customer. One time use codes so you have to keep track of account details if you think youll want to replay a game at some point. And no lan, so you can watch MLG and see Incontrol's face get increasingly more FFFFFUUUUU as the connection to bnet lags. Again, I WANT LAN. I know it sucks we have to deal with it, but again, it makes sense they would do it. I'm getting tired of being screwed over to deal with pirates too, but until there aren't any(LOL) we have to deal with it. Again, "This is why we can't have nice things". It was citation needed for the "LAN would make the game be pirated a ton" section. ICCup, for one. Or the fact that 3.2 million were pirated already, and that's only for single player? Offering Free mutiplayer to pirates too? Starcraft 1 was pirated Millions of times, what makes you think Starcraft 2 wont in a time where pirating is much more common? ICCup wasn't LAN. iccup was possible BECAUSE OF LAN MODE. nope iccup was a emulated battle.net server, they ran mods such as LatencyChanger mod developed by MasterofChaos was in default on their server but it still required an external program for that plug-in. which allowed you to lower then b.net latency from the lowest of 250ms down to lan delay of 126ms-ish. Blizzard turned a blind eye to those servers although they could take it down if they wanted, brainclan etc. Just like they taken down WoW servers and SC2 servers. iccup had nothing to do with lan mode in sc1. Yes you can play pirated copies of SC1 on iccup but blizz figures when the game is 10 years old who cares.
again, iccup was possible BECAUSE OF LAN mode. when a game includes lan, it basically gives the code out on what is required to EMULATE battlenet.
LAN does not always mean LAN. programs like garena /iccup used the lan mode to hook up to these online programs.
You said it yourself, you ddint have to buy sc1 to play in iccup, And where did you get the audacity to say Blizzard doesn't care cause the game was 10 years old, where did blizzard say that?
I am not saying ICCUP was wrong, I even admit im a pirate in previous posts. Im just pointing out common knowledge here on why sc2 has excluded LAN. BECAUSE OF PIRACY. nothing more nothing less. you cannot defend piracy cause its not possible to defend stealing, even if its morally right ( robin hood) . At the end of the day its still wrong, and because of that, i perfectly understand why blizzard has not included LAN.
it sucks for tournaments, but thats just something everybody is going to have to live with.
|
On June 23 2011 09:49 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 09:43 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:33 flowSthead wrote:On June 23 2011 09:28 Vandal_heart wrote:On June 23 2011 09:24 flowSthead wrote:On June 23 2011 09:22 theOnslaught wrote:On June 23 2011 09:21 masterbreti wrote:
Just for reference. Right now over 5k people are downloading sc2 and pirating it. at 50 a peice. There is something like 300,000 in lost sales just for today. assuming on average sc2 get pirated the same amount for the last 6 months and for the entire 2011.
That means in 2011 alone. sc2 was pirated and lost blizz more than 3.6 million. Thats a huge amount fo money.
I think in 2010 the most pirated gameswas sc2 with like 1.2 million pirated it. Thats hundreds of millions of dollars lost. You're a fool, not everyone that pirated the game was going to buy it in the first place. People keep up bringing this up, but I do not see how it makes it better. It is the equivalent argument to saying that not everyone that drinks and drives will murder someone. It happens often enough. Excuse me sir, which arguing college did you go to? Because they have done some sterling work... How is the analogy poor? Illegally downloading a game and drunk driving are both illegal, and both of them have the possibility to cause harm. One by potential lost sales, and the other by injury or death. People not against piracy are saying that not all pirates would have purchased anyway, and I make the analogy that not all drunk driving results in death. This doesn't change that more drunk driving usually leads to more death, and more pirating will mean a greater number of people that might have bought it. Also, both are illegal. Explain to me where the analogy fails. Because the person you were quoting was talking about the "I think in 2010 the most pirated gameswas sc2 with like 1.2 million pirated it. Thats hundreds of millions of dollars lost" line, specifically. Nobody said it made it better, just that it made the conclusion obviously wrong. Also equating people getting killed in car accidents to blizzard not getting money, thats not really the best of analogies. I don't care about who Onslaught was quoting, the argument he made is one seen in this entire thread and it is a flawed argument. The conclusion is also not wrong generally, just specifically. If out of 1000 games only 20 are real lost sales, those are still 20 lost sales. The number doesn't change the reality of the crime. I also don't think you understand what an analogy is. Just because you interpret dieing in a car accident to be worse than Blizzard losing money, does not make it a poor analogy. The analogy serves to clarify. The fact that you see an issue with drunk driving, but not pirating and stealing someone's stuff, just serves to illustrate something about your personal morals, not the analogy as a whole. I happen to agree that drunk driving is worse, by the way, I just don't then make the conclusion that pirating is suddenly ok because something worse exists. The analogy works because it illustrates that both are wrong due to bad consequences that follow them. The percentage of bad consequences to actions does not change how good or bad those actions are. They are separate issues.
A flawed argument for what? The number of people pirating the game =/= the number of lost sales. Nobody is saying people are pirating the game and also paying for it, therefore all the other piracy is ok.
An analogy is comparing 2 similiar circumstances. I dont see that these situations are that similiar, its like a wee version of godwins law. The fact that I notice the difference of scale between piracy and manslaughter shows something about my perspective. At no point did I endorse piracy for the sake of not paying for things. Over a hundred games on steam, shelves of games and dvd's, shelves of books, I have no issue with paying for things.
At no point did I say that piracy is ok because something worse exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
